The Infodemic — and the Scientists Fighting Against It | Jessica Malaty Rivera | TED

Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist, defines leadership in public health as bridging the gap between complex scientific information and the public it serves. She emphasizes the need to make science accessible, especially in times when public health and science are under scrutiny and attack. Rivera believes science is inherently political because it informs policy, but it should not be politicized. Courageous leadership, in her view, involves actively connecting with lawmakers and advocacy groups to prevent dangerous misinformation from filling the void created by scientific silos. Communicating complex and often unpopular truths in emotionally charged environments requires both care and courage. Rivera acknowledges that speaking uncomfortable truths has come at a personal cost, including threats to her safety and family. However, she finds grounding by remembering her purpose, inspired by her children, and by seeking solidarity with other scientists dedicated to making science understandable. She aims to elevate people's scientific literacy rather than simplify complex information, recognizing that people need tools to navigate challenging information ecosystems. When deciding when to speak up, Rivera's "red line" is when harmful health information jeopardizes public health goals like reducing harm and preventing disease. She views public health emergencies as involving both an outbreak of a pathogen and an outbreak of information, noting that information is rarely neutral and can accelerate epidemics. Addressing both requires a big-picture view, acknowledging people's fears, feelings of being forgotten, and past hurts. Rebuilding trust is crucial, and Rivera differentiates between trust and trustworthiness, questioning her own worthiness to be trusted rather than simply demanding trust based on expertise. In a world where expertise is subjective, she prioritizes ground-level listening to understand individual needs. Rivera believes that data alone doesn't change minds; stories do. While acknowledging that "the plural of anecdote is not data," she recognizes the significant influence of individual stories in connecting science to decision-making. She leads with her own multifaceted identity, including being a mother, and shares her experiences, including postpartum anxiety, to demonstrate humanity and connect with others. She sees this as a slower but more impactful process than solely relying on data. She identifies a significant messaging problem in public health, often treating communication as an afterthought. Rivera argues that simply stating facts like "vaccines work" is insufficient. The crucial element is a trusted message from a trusted messenger, turning the concept of vaccines into actual vaccinations through effective communication. This involves making clinical trial data understandable, ensuring transparency in the process, and avoiding conflicts of interest. She emphasizes that significant investment is made in research and development but not enough in communication, leading to life-saving interventions being underutilized. Trust, she asserts, is a determinant of health decisions, and without investing in communication, tools will remain unused. Rebuilding fractured trust in public figures and voices is a long game. Rivera likens it to the work of repair with her children, acknowledging the deep hurt and trauma of recent years. She advocates for a multidisciplinary approach to regaining trust, involving social scientists, psychologists, therapists, politicians, and strategists. The challenge is compounded by a "tug of war over trust," where words like "trusted," "evidence-based," and "gold standard" are losing their meaning. Rivera feels compelled to expose the processes behind science with transparency, as people have felt excluded and expected to simply obey. She believes experts should influence decisions, but repair requires acknowledging uncertainty. Saying "I don't know" is uncomfortable for scientists but is the foundation of the scientific method. Returning to basics like hypotheses and processes, rather than relying on certainty and binary thinking, is essential. Rivera is encouraged by the emergence of science communicators and the growing lexicon of terms like "infodemic." She believes in training a generation of scientists who can communicate their work effectively, as it's incomplete if confined to institutions. Her passion stems from becoming a "personal scientist" for many, enabling repeatable messages and fostering a community of science communicators. When encouraging others to persist in making a difference, Rivera reminds them that the good outweighs the bad, despite facing violence, death threats, and antagonism. She points out that the opposing side often lacks the evidence and data that back their claims. Courageous and repeated truth-telling has proven beneficial. Public health interventions are often invisible due to their success; when people are well, public health is working, which is the desired outcome. Making this invisible work visible through communication and inviting participation is crucial to prevent defunding and devaluation. Rivera finds courage by embracing all her identities—epidemiologist, science communicator, mom, and first-generation American—which contribute to her trustworthiness. She speaks up even when it's scary, opposing administrations, politicians, or individuals making harmful claims. Her work involves confronting darkness, from dismantling public health systems to witnessing global injustices, like the situation in Gaza, which she connects to public health and children. Her "why" is sense-making—making complicated things understandable to different people. This, coupled with the belief that speaking up about science and injustice is always right and worthwhile, fuels her persistence. She has witnessed the fruitfulness of this approach, drawing inspiration from her experiences in Rwanda, a country rebuilding 30 years after genocide.